Friday,]

not say that I shall not be in favor of having all those officers elected by a plurality vote.

My own judgment is that the action of the Committee which reported this resolve should have been confined to those officers who are now recognized by the Constitution. If ot er oficers shall be created by the new Constitution, we can then, when that is decided, determine whether it is expedient to bring them under the operation of this proposed principle, or apply to them some other principle.

As I understand the position of the question before the Conuitte, there is an amalment which proposes to exclude from t'e op ration of this system, the governor, heutenant-governor, secretary of state, attorney-general and auditor of t'ie Com.nan wealth, and senators and members of the House; which is the propositioa propo ed by the gentlem in from Plymouth. Well, Sir, then there comes a further am ›ndment which provides that certain officers shall be chosen by a majority vote. My proposition would be, shold these amendments be laid aside, to introduce an amendmont as a substitute for tae or ginal resolve intro lied by the Committee. For the purpose of information, I will real the ama Im at at the present time. It is as follows: Strike out all after the word "resolve," an I insert the following: "That it is expelient so to amead the Constitution as to provide that the persons respectively having the highest number of votes for governor and lieutenant-geraor, shall be elected, but in case two or more shall have an equil and the highest number of votes for governor and lieut nant-governor, the Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in convention, and choose one of the said persons so having an equal and the highest number of votes for governer and lieutenant-governor, and the person having the highest number of votes in convention of the two Houses shall be elected."

And I propose another similar one, mutatis mutandis, in reference to the election of senators in the several districts.

If these other amendments shall be rejected by the Committee, and the amendments I have read to the Committee shall pass, I suppose it would then be in order to extend the application of this principle to members of congress, to the secretary, treasurer, attorney-general, and such other officers as we know now exist.

I think, that by taking into consideration, in the first instance, that class of officers, in reference to which the greatest difficulty has heretofore been experienced, and uniting upon those, it will be easier then to extend the principle to others which may be created, than to take the general and uncertain language of the Constitution as to other officers who may be created.

[Cries of "question," "question."]

The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. Sumner,) then stated the question to be upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Plymouth.

The question was taken thereon, and the amendment was not agreed to.

The question then recurring upon the original resolve,

Mr. WALKER offered the amendment heretofore mentioned by the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Knowlton,) as follows: strike out all after the word "resolve," and insert, "that in the election of governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and representatives, a majority of all the votes

east shall be necessary for a choice, and the elcetion of all ot er officers shall be by a majority or plurality of votes, as the legislature shall d termine, unless ot terwise specially provided for in the Constitution."

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. I would like to ask t'e geatleman from North Brookfield, Mr. Walker,) what the diff reace is between his amendment and tac present Constitution.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I would suggest ! whether the amendment oflred by the gentle man upon my rigt, does not include all such now odicers as may be provided for by the new Constitution, and therefore difering in that respect frota the present Constitution.

Mr. HALLETT. I wish to answer the questioa wifea my friend from North Brookfield has not answered. The question, as I understand it, is this-what is the difference between that amendment and the present Constitution? The difference is this, that the majority principle is to be appled to all those officers who are elected to make your laws, and that to other officers, t..e principle of plurality, or any other principle which the legislature may think proper, may be applied.

Mr. BUTLER. My question is, what is the difference between tais proposition and the Constitution as it now stands? The Constitution now provides for the election of governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators, by a majority. What is the diference?

Mr. ASPINWALL, of Brookline. I would ask the gentleman from Lowell if he will point out a provision in the Constitution which requires the representatives to the general court to be elected by a majority? I have often heard it said that such was the fact, but I believe it is not, and therefore this proposition differs from the present Constitution, inasmuch as it includes the representatives under the majority principle, while the present Constitution does not.

Mr. GRAY, of Boston. The gentleman from Brookline is right. The present Constitution under which we live, does not provide, in terms, that the majority or plurality system shall prevail, as to representatives, but only that they shall be chosen by the voters of the towns. So that it provides for a majority vote, if it provides at all, by implication, and not by direct terms. But I am inclined to think that it does provide for a majority vote, but only by implication.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. It was not stated in the Constitution whether the representatives shall be chosen by a majority or by a plurality, because it was supposed that our form of government required a majority. It was taken for granted that in the election of our rulers, they were to be elected by a majority. In the book which I have before me, the Debates of the Convention of 1820, I find these words, upon which my eye chanced to light while this debate has been going It is the principle of every free government that the majority should rule. When the laws are made by a minority, whether it be one or a hundred, it is tyranny." That was the universal sentiment of that Convention.

46

But it seems to be inferred here, that because a certain other party has sprung into existence, which seems to be giving somebody so much trouble, they must get rid of it. What are we to do with the thirty or forty thousand voters of Massachusetts, who consider it an infamy to

[May 27th.

support certain candidates that may be put in nomination by one of the parties; when we have no e oice of a tard candidate? Will you force so great a holy of the people of Massacausetts int te dilemma of closing one of those two evils? Is that repu' Lean? Yes, Sir, nearly forty thousand voters of this State have, for a few years, regarded the candidates of the two national parties as perfectly beyond, and one side of their having anything to do with them. Those candidates were all of one stripe. They have represented principles which I consider it infa.nous to support.

Now, then, the action of these parties is to force a new order of things upon the people of Massachusetts, and to prevent these third parties from exercising, with any practical effect, the right of suffrage. Why, Sir, when the two great parties see fit to place themselves in a position in which a third party cannot agree, whether from good or bad motives, I think that third party ought to have some way by which it can express its hostility. Now, Sir, the effect of adopting this plurality system, if there be any purpose at all in ado; ting it, is to force upon a large portion of the people of Massachusetts a government in which they are compelled to have no voice, or to adopt what their consciences do not approve. Now, Sir, is that a principle worthy of being followed in this Convention? But this plurality principle is called a democratic principle. Who ever heard of such a thing before? I do not deny that it is democratic, for I profess to know nothing about democracy in the modern acceptation of the term. I do not know what principles the democratic party may have adopted of late, and I do not know but this may be one of them; I do not deny that it is, but it seems to me a strange democratic doctrine.

Now, Sir, there has been one gubernatorial election referred to repeatedly in this Convention, where it was said the minority candidate was elected under the majority system. We all know this reference is to the election of George S. Boutwell in 1851. But, Sir, if there was ever a governor elected who was the choice of a majority of the people, that man was George S. Boutwell. I was a member of the Senate at that time, and voted against him upon the first ballot but I voted for him upon the second ballot, and not one single constituent of mine who voted for me has ever said I voted upon that occasion differently from what he had expected or wished. He was their choice. When they found they could not have the man they originally wanted they preferred George S. Boutwell to any other man. They elected him, and no man was ever more thoroughly backed by a majority of the people.

A great deal has been said about these second trials; that questions were not settled by a majority of the voters because a large portion of them do not go to the polls. Why, they help to settle the question just as much by staying away as by voting. We are bound to suppose in that case that those who stay away do it either from indifference, or because they can see but little difference between the several candidates, and we are bound to suppose that half are in favor of one candidate and half in favor of the other so that when a candidate receives a majority of all the votes cast he is just as much elected by a majority of all the voters as if he had actually received their votes. I do not know from the

Friday,]

smiles which I see upon some countenances but this is very wild doctrine, but it is what I believe to be the truth.

Now, it seems to me that the effect of these resolves, is to change our government from a republican government. If a republican government is not that which receives the sanction of a majority of the people, what is it? This proposition is to change our form of government and to declare that the republican form of government in Massachusetts is not that sanctioned by the majority of the people. Sir, I want to know where such a form of government was ever heard of and what is the name of it? It seems to me that from the very formation of the government, this majority principle has been regarded as one of the fundamental principles of the government, a principle from which we have never deviated, and which, in the Conventions heretofore held for the purpose of revising our Constitution, has never been disputed. But, Sir, there has been a degeneracy in politics not only in Massachusetts but in nearly all the States, and propositions are now made and looked upon with perfect indifference by men who a few years ago would have started at the mention of such a thing. I believe there are men in this Convention who now favor this plurality system, who, had it been proposed to them four years ago, would have considered it as the most dangerous radicalism. It has never been acted upon or favored in Massachusetts until a very recent period, by the party which now seems almost unanimously to be in favor of it. It is true there are exceptions. I confess that there are persons who act with me in most matters, who have generally been in favor of this proposition, but I have never been in favor of it.

Gentlemen have alluded to the influence of this third party in preventing men from being sent to congress, and districts from being represented there. Well, Sir, have we suffered from it? How many thousand times had it been better if we had not been represented there? We have sent men to congress, who, instead of asserting and maintaining our rights, have surrendered them. How infinitely better, if this same third party influence, of which gentlemen complain so much, had operated in their cases to keep them at home? Sir, the people would much rather have silence in our national legislature, so far as that representation is concerned; they would rather trust to the generosity and liberality of their enemies, than to send men there to maintain their rights who will prove recreant to the trust, and who will surrender those rights. They would rather not be represented at all than to be misrepresented. It is not such a great thing to have a blank in our representation in congress. I would much rather have a blank than to have it filled by a man who will not maintain his rights, and represent properly the wishes of his constituents, whatever they may be.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, of Boston. If the gentleman will permit me to interrupt him, I desire to inquire whether these recreant members of congress, of whom he speaks, were not those elected under the majority system?

Mr. KEYES. Some of them were, but they were mostly sent by a plurality. In the allusions I made to the congress of the United States, however, I referred not to members sent from Massachusetts exclusively, but to those sent from

all the northern States where the plurality system generally prevails in their election.

Mr. LAWTON, of Fall River, moved that the Committee do now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The question being taken, the motion was not agreed to.

Mr. TRAIN, of Framingham. I have thus far taken no part in this debate, nor do I desire to do so now. I simply rise for the purpose of suggesting -which I shall do before I sit down-an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Plymouth.

I must confess, Sir, that I have been somewhat suprised at what mine eyes have seen, and mine ears have heard, in this body, upon this question. I had come down here from the country, fresh in the belief that there was but one opinion among the people in every part of the State, in relation to changes which should be made in the Constitution of the Commonwealth; and one of those changes, I had been led to believe, was that contemplated by these resolves, which have been reported by the Committee. I believe still that this is one of the changes which the people of the Commonwealth are nearly unanimous in desiring. My friend from Malden, (Mr. Perkins,) stated a literal fact to-day,-nearer the truth than any they have heard,-when he said that the people desire the plurality principle. I believe that to be true. But when, in the course of this discussion, I have heard gentlemen, whom I have known for a long time, and who have been struggling for years to bring about a remedy by which a portion of the people of the Commonwealth shall not be disfranchised in our popular elections, and when I have seen these gentlemen in this Convention, turn right about face, whether at the command of military or other gentlemen I know not, I confess I am somewhat surprised. Sir, what is it that has been conceded to be the proposition of the most importance? What has been the strongest argument used before the people of Massachusetts for calling this Convention? It has been the necessity for this very change. That has been urged with more force and effectiveness than any other argument. Then I must look somewhere else for an explanation of this opposition which has sprung up in this Convention to this proposed change. Has there been any reason suggested here why we should adhere to the majority system, which drives us year after year to the election of minority candidates for the highest offices of the Commonwealth? 1 have heard none. My friend who has just taken his seat, (Mr. KEYES,) has said that the majority principle is the democratic principle, and that the plurality system is not democratic. Sir, where does he derive that information?

Mr. KEYES. I have said that I had heard it asserted that the plurality was the democratic principle, but that as I knew very little about democracy, I would not undertake to say whether the assertion was correct or not.

Mr. TRAIN. Very well. I did not know but my friend might, through his associations, have learned, by this time, something of what democracy is. [Laughter.] I think the plurality principle is the democratic principle. We have not had a president of the United States, for years, who has not been chosen by a plurality. But I am not so well versed in political matters as the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Davis).

[May 27th.

I do not know when the last president was chosen by a majority of the people of this confederacy. Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. At the last presidential election.

Mr. TRAIN. When was the last one before him?

Mr. BUTLER. In 1840.

Mr. TRAIN. Very well, then; we have had two presidents in the last fifteen years who were chosen by a majority, but when out of New England, have the presidential electors been chosen by the majority. Sir, the practice has become universal, out of New England, to choose the presidential electors by a plurality. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, all choose their presidential electors by plurality, and will any gentleman tell me that those States act upon an anti-democratic principle? Then upon what principle, upon what ground, can you tell me that the majority alone is the democratic principle. I should be glad if I could support that principle, if it is the only democratic one; but the experience of the years during which we have lived under the present Constitution of Massachusetts, has demonstrated to me that we should no longer seek to perpetuate the principle adopted by the founders of that Constitution. Now, I need not repeat to gentlemen that we have minority officers in this Commonwealth. Every-body knows it; and every-body knows that we have minority officers because the majority system is adhered to. Is there any other reason? Almost all the offices in the Commonwealth have been run through to show the effect of this majority principle by different gentlemen; but there is one election which has not been mentioned, to which I beg leave to refer gentlemen for a moment; and that is our very spring election which we have held since March last, for our county commissioners. And I ask gentlemen to tell me of any officer in the Commonwealth of larger powers save that of the Supreme Court? They are officers with powers to affect the rights of every man, and yet within a week, you have had appointed commissioners in at least six counties, by your governor, who I apprehend had not one of them received a plurality of votes. That has been the effect of your majority system in electing these county commissioners; and I apprehend you cannot find a stronger illustration of the working of that system to place the power in the hands of the minority.

But my friend from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) intimated that he might be willing to elect some officers but that he was not willing to elect them all by plurality, and, therefore, he hoped the Convention would vote down the resolves and leave the matter to be settled in relation to each officer as the case should come up. He was afraid we might forestall ourselves by adopting these resolves, and he preferred leaving it an open question to adopt the majority or the plurality principle in each case, as the Convention might see fit to determine. Now, can that gentleman show me any distinction in principle, or any good reason why one officer should be elected by a majority and another by a minority? I understand the amendment of the gentleman from North Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) contemplates exempting a certain class from the plurality principle, and of subjecting others to it. Now can that gentleman show me any difference in principle, unless it be a political distinction, which should exempt one office from

Friday,]

the consent of the people-the majority of the people who alone can give that consent. The delegate for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) in his statesmanlike speech to-day-a speech not to be answered here or elsewhere-has placed this question before us in its true light. Whenever or wherever we depart from that idea, whether we adopt the plurality rule or any other rule which allows less than a majority to rule, we depart from that fundamental democratic principle, that American idea underlying all our American institutions. That Commonwealth that approaches the nearest to universal suffrage, and which requires the consent of a majority of the people in the election of public servants, maintains in the most perfect manner the idea of a democratic Commonwealth. I disagree entirely, Sir, with the idea thrown out by the distinguished member from Taunton, (Gov. Morton,) and assented to by the distinguished member from Pittsfield, (Gov. Briggs,) and some other members, that if the people assent to the plurality rule-a rule which gives to less than a majority of all the people the right to govern-it is not a departure from the democratic theory of our government. Suppose the people should assent to a proposition which should narrow down the right of suffrage to one thousand men in the Commonwealth, would the fact that the people had given their consent to such a proposition make it any less a wide departure from the democratic theory of our government? Certainly not, Sir, certainly not. The assent of the people to an anti-democratic theory, principle, or system, does not make that theory, principle, or system, any the less anti-democratic.

Nor is the reference of the gentleman from Taunton, (Gov. Morton,) to the action of other States, assuming to be democratic, any the less unfortunate. If adherence to the majority principle be more in accordance to the democratic idea of our American system, "then," says the gentleman, "is Massachusetts more democratic than Virginia." Well, Sir, is she not so? Are not the descendants of the Puritans more truly democratic than the sons of the Cavaliers? Is not this old Commonwealth which recognizes the equality before the law of the humblest man that breathes the air or walks the earth, of every race and clime, more democratic than a Commonwealth which makes merchandise of more than one-fourth of her sons? Is not this old Commonwealth, which gives free suffrage to all men, more democratic than a Commonwealth which denies to more than one-fourth of her sons all the rights of man, and which, until quite recently, required a freehold qualification for suffrage, and gave to the landholder the right to vote in several counties at the same election? Sir, there are States that claim to be democratic in the party sense of that word, where the people have not yet learned their first lessons in that genuine democracy which recognizes in the humblest man that treads their soil, a man and a brother, whom God made and for whom Christ died. Nowhere on this continent are personal rights more clearly recognized, better defined and more carefully guarded, than in this Commonwealth. I go further. I maintain, Sir, that Massachusetts is, to-day, incomparably more democratic than Virginia, and has been so from the foundation of her government in the cabin of the Mayflower. I maintain, to-day, Sir, and I believe it, and have ever believed it, and I am proud to believe it, that Massachusetts is the most

"Where the cant of democracy dwells on the lips

Of the forgers of fetters and wielders of whips."

I do not, Mr. President, concur in the idea thrown out in this debate by some of my political friends, especially by my friend for Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) that the adoption of the plurality system will destroy the men with whom I act, and with whom he acts. I have no apprehension, no fear whatever. Here in Massachusetts, I should like to see a power on earth that could fling us so high that we could not come down on our feet. As a politician, I should agree with the member for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) that it would be for my interest, and the interest of the men with whom I act, to have a plurality rule in this Commonwealth. Before three years passes away, I venture to say that those gentlemen who think now that this system is to blot us out, will find they have not won by it. I admonish those gentlemen who anticipate so much pleasure in swallowing up the "factions," to look well to their own heads when the swallowing precess begins.

I oppose the plurality system, because I believe it tends to degrade the politics of the country, and to demoralize the politicians of the country. I think this has been the experience of the country. It has increased the power of the caucus, the convention, party organizations, great combinations, great interests, and the influence of political leaders, and it has diminished the power of the people who follow their higher and better sentiments. Here, as elsewhere, the world over, the sentiments of humanity, of freedom, of progress, have ever sprung from the bosom of the people— not from party organizations of interest and ambition. Those great reforms in England since the peace of 1815-Parliamentary Reform, Catholic Emancipation, West India Emancipation, the Corn Laws, and all those measures which have marked the history of England for forty years, have been achieved by the people, not by the public men, for her public men and political parties only yielded when they could no longer resist the pressure of the moral sentiments of the people. It is so on the continent. Reforms spring from the bosom of the masses, and are baffled and checked by combined organization. Just so in our country. Everything that is progressive, that carries us onward in the career of democratic progress, springs from the higher and nobler sentiments of the people who follow their own ideas, rather than the demands of combinations of interest and ambition. I put it to gentlemen of the Convention to say if it be not a "fixed fact," that very many of our best men, men who are guided by ideas and sentiments, men who follow their moral convictions rather than the banner of political strife, men who want good government and good public officers do not attend political caucuses and conventions. Now, Sir, if you adopt the plurality system, what will be its practical effect upon these men upon whose moral instincts, liberal tendencies, and unselfish action, the best hopes of the country rest? Under our majority system,

[May 27th.

the political leaders and active politicians who go into caucuses and conventions, know there is a moral power at home-that if they outrage that moral power by putting up an unworthy candidate, or by endorsing an unsound principle, or adopting a selfish policy, that when the day of election comes, the mechanic and the farmer, the men who do not generally meddle with political affairs, will come up to the ballot-box, and will checkmate their policy, defeat their candidate, and arrest them in their carcer. The majority system gives the men of principles, ideas and sentiments, the power to resist.the schemes of party leaders, and to make them feel, whenever they enter the caucus and the convention, that they must not outrage the higher sentiments of the best men of their parties. Now, Sir, adopt the plurality rule in all your elections, and you make the caucus and the convention omnipotent; you give full sway to the political chiefs who are controlled by interest and ambition. The whole tendency of the system is to debauch the public sentiment of the country, and to enthrone the omnipotent power of the caucus and the convention. Politicians go into the caucus or the convention, prompted by ambition and interest, adopt their own schemes of policy, and when the day of election comes, and the men who are governed by their higher and better sentiments assemble around the ballot-box, they are told that they must take the "choice of evils," that they must vote for a candidate they know to be unworthy -whose "nomination was not fit to be made,"or his and their political opponent will be elected. They know the contest must be then and there decided. They feel the pressure. They pause, hesitate, yield, vote for a candidate they know to be unworthy, and go home degraded in their own eyes, and more ready to yield again to the demands of the caucus and the convention. The whole machinery of caucuses and conventions in this country, is one of the worst features of our democratic institutions. The majority system gives the people the power to checkmate their influence; the plurality system lets them have free course and be glorified. Sir, I have had during the past fifteen years, some little knowledge of caucuses and conventions, and the more I have seen of the managers of caucuses and conventions, the less I think of them. The more I see of caucuses and conventions, of the strifes of political life, the more I turn to the unbiassed will of the people with hope and confidence. I am a party man; but the more I see of politicians, the more ready I am to concur with the man who said, that the more he saw of others, the better he thought of himself. [Laughter.]

We have lived here in this State, from the foundation of the government, under the majority system. It has its evils, and those evils have been pointed out. There have been recent occurrences which have changed whole battalions of men with regard to their opinions on this question. My friend from Framingham, talks about his disappointment at seeing gentlemen oppose this plurality system. Sir, does he not know that he stands on this floor with gentlemen who have all their lives opposed the plurality rule? The gentleman from Pittsfield, (Governor Briggs,) implored us not to let the little petty interests of party govern us in our decision. What, but the little petty interests of party, has wrought this sudden and miraculous conversion, which has

Friday,]

changed that gentleman and his political associates from opponents to advocates of this new system? Have not recent occurrences effected this euange? Are not these occurrences of a political nature? I commend the advice of the gentleman from Pittsfield, to the consideration of his political friends. I hope the majority principle, to which Massachusetts has adhered from the foundation of her government up to this hour, is not to be abandoned now, to meet the demands of the "little, petty interests of party" under the pressure of a pre-ent temporary inconvenience.

My friend from Haverhill, (Mr. Hall,) told us yesterday, that the Committee, of which he is a member, had hesitated about reporting in favor of electing officers by the people, until this question is settled. Pray, Sir, why should that Committee be governed in their action by the decision of this question? I assure the gentleman from Haverhill, and the gentlemen with whom he is associated on the Committee, that I am in favor of the election of every civil officer by the people where it is practicable. I would destroy all the patronage of the executive of the state and nation, if I could do so. I never wish to see any man walking up the steps of this capitol to ask for office at the hands of the executive. The whole system of executive patronage is degrading and corrupting, and it should be restricted and limited. Look at the changes that have taken place in the politics of the country during the last sixteen years, in consequence of disappointments growing out of the patronage of the government. Administrations have been wrecked by it. A great party has just come into power, and a wild rush is made for place and patronage. I should not be surprised to see that administration weakened and overthrown by the action of disappointed applicants for executive patronage. Governmental patronage in the state and nation has a tendency to corrupt and weaken any party which has ideas and principles it wishes to carry out. It is the duty of this Convention to give to the people the election of officers where it is practicable to do so, and I hope the gentleman from Haverhill and his associates will so report.

Gentlemen have spoken of the repeated trials for members of congress. We have a provision now-which no one proposes to change-that on the second trial a plurality shall elect. If gentlemen who advocate the plurality rule, will consent to have the governor, lieutenant-governor, the secretary of state, treasurer, auditor, and attorney-general, if we shall decide, as I hope we shall, to elect them-and the Senate and House by the majority system, I am willing to agree that all vacancies occasioned by failures to elect senators or representatives at the annual election, shall be filled at a second trial by a plurality of votes, and that county and municipal officers shall be elected by the plurality rule. This will do away with the trouble and inconvenience complained of, and at the same time give the people an opportunity to express at the polls their own convictions of duty.

Mr. President, I would, if I had the power, restore the majority principle in all the States of the Union. Protected by that democratic principle, every man may well say, in the words of Edmund Burke, to the electors of Bristol, that "His unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to any man, or to any set of men living." Then,

when "his unbiased opinion, his mature judg ment, his enlightened conscience” cannot sanction the policy of his political associates, he will not heed that delusive cry of “the choice of evils" now so potential, for he knows that the majority system will allow him to rebuke the folly of his political friends, without clevating to power his political opponents. I fully believe that the restoration of the majority principle would lessen the power of the caucus and the convention, chasten ambition and interest, and give freer scope to the moral sentiments of the people. Yes, Sir, its restoration would give the people in their primary assemblies, far greater power and control over public affairs, and over public men, and that power and control would be for the advancement of popular rights, democratic ideas and sentiments. Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I am very much surprised at the tone of remarks made by the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) and I am, sorry that the debate which has been carried on for two or three days without reference to party, should, at this late stage of it, have party interests brought in for consideration. The gentleman has talked about democracy, democracy and democracy, and nothing but democracy.

Mr. WILSON. I wish the gentleman to understand that in the use of the word democracy, I have not used it in any party sense whatever, but in the American sense, without reference to any creeds or existing parties.

[May 27th.

field, and it was probable that the people in the State would not be alie to give a majority for eit er of them, what did they do? Way, at the Last session, they brought a bill into the Senate to repeal t..e plurality law, alt',ough the legisla ture was elected without any reference to that particular question. The repeal of that law was advocated in the House of Representatives also, It was finally withdrawn, or died on the table. If this amendment is adopted, the same thing can be done every four years; whenever it shall be found that it will be for the benefit of any party to repeal the plurality principle they will do it and throw into the legislature the great question of deciding who shall vote for a president for the next four years.

Sir, I do not wish to give the legislature of this State, or of any other State, any power like it. I wish to have the question decided by the people, as they decide who they will have for presidential electors; and, Sir, the people were satisfied with it, and did not desire that it should be brought be| fore the legislature of the State. They did not want a question referred to the legislature which they were not elected to decide, because it might | open the door for corruption. It may have happened, and it may happen again, that the electoral vote of Massachusetts, may decide who shall be president and vice-president of the United States for four years. The gentleman has referred to the vast patronage of that power, and yet he advocates an amendment which, if we were to adopt it, would place the whole of that patronage in the hands of a few members of the legislature of

Mr. SCHOULER. The gentleman said he was a democratic democrat, and that a democratic democrat was so very democratic that the more he mingled with the people the less he thought | Massachusetts, because then the question would of them, and the more he thought of himself. If that is democratic democracy, it is not that which I wish to uphold. The more I have mingled with the people the more I like them, and the less I think of myself; although I do not wish to call myself a democrat or any party man. I probably stand here with as little political preference as any man in this body. The gentleman says he has mingled in caucuses; so have I, but I repeat that I stand here as free from party feeling as any man; and I am sorry that any party question has been brought in here. I hope that before we adjourn we will discard it, and that when we take the vote, if we take it to-night, we shall not consider anything of a party nature, but shall vote on the resolution without any reference whatever to party.

I should not have risen but for the amendment proposed by my friend from Framingham; and I must say that I am surprised that such an amendment has been proposed. The very thing we want to do is to take that kind of caucusing out of the legislature. What he wishes is, that the people shall decide at any time, whether officers shall be elected by a majority or a plurality. I wish to give the legislature no such power. If there is anything in this country that we should put into the Constitution, it is the way and manner in which our electors and governors shall be elected. We passed an act a year or two ago in order to bring this thing to a practical test, for the election of electors by a plurality; and that was satisfactory to the people, in my judgment, and is satisfactory to them now. And yet the gentle

man who talks so much against caucuses and those who act with him, after the different caucuses had made their nominations, or after it was probable there would be three candidates in the

be decided by two or three men who should be president of the United States; and the "spoils," the fifty millions of dollars, would afford means to buy up, if necessary, the electoral vote of Massachusetts, for one or the other candidate for the presidency. Now I wish to keep all such considerations out of view. It seems to me that if members of the Convention will only reflect a moment upon the subject, they will see how much wrong might be committed under that state of things Let us give the proposition to the people, whether they wish to elect their officers by the plurality system or not, and if they decide in favor of it, I presume no one will desire to oppose the will of the people; but if they decide against it then we have the Constitution remaining in its present form and no harm is done.

The gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) has said a great deal about democracy, about the people of the United States being republicans, and about our living under a republican government; and he also says that there can be no republican government without the majority principle-that the principle that the majority shall rule is an essential feature of a republican government. But, Sir, he knows, and every man of common sense in this body knows, that in something like twenty-five States of this Union, elections are held under the plurality law. The gentleman representing Wilbraham, also told us that there was no republican government where the majority did not rule. Sir, I wish to ask that gentleman and the gentleman from Natick, whether we live under a republican government? Is not the United States a republic, when it is expressly declared in the Constitution of the United States, that there shall be no other kind of government except republican government? Does he mean to say,